Why pick on Baroness Ashton?

French diplomats, we read, are seeking to destabilise Baroness Ashton. She is, they insinuate, under-qualified, lazy and in the pocket of the British Government. Worst of all – choc! horreur! - she doesn't speak French.

As they say in France: et alors? Of course Baroness Ashton is under-qualified: she was appointed, not because of any particular aptitude for her post, but as a kind of compensation to Labour for Tony Blair not being given the presidency. Then again, the same is true, mutatis mutandis, of every other Commission nominee. These jobs are always treated as sinecures: a handy way to pension off rivals or reward stooges.

Lazy? Well, I suppose her failure to learn a single language in two years in Brussels points to a certain indolence. But, as this blog never tires of pointing out, British Europhiles generally have atrocious language skills. If they were a little bit more comfortable with other European cultures, they wouldn't feel the need to over-compensate by backing Brussels all the time.

Far be it from me to defend Lady Ashton, whose original nomination I opposed. But it is hard to see what makes her any worse than her colleagues. The real question is this: why is it that, on Tuesday, MEPs will almost certainly vote by a huge majority to endorse a Commission which – no one truly denies it – is filled with mediocrities and dullards?